By means of the teaching of Christian Doctrine and Ethics the humanists determined for her the things in both this life and the next best worth living for, but they were not satisfied with this. That they might secure the application of this knowledge in right doing they saw to it that the essential elements of religion and morality were bound up with her mental and physical development. To this end stress was laid upon the cultivation of moral and religious sentiments in the study of the classical languages and other related subjects, just as in the teaching of music and in physical culture.

In his enthusiasm for ancient literature, D'Arezzo did not lose sight of this. Summing up his theories he says: "None have more urgent claim than the subjects and authors which treat of Religion and of our duties in the world; and it is because they assist and illustrate these supreme studies that I press upon your attention the works of the most approved poets, historians and orators of the past." 99131

But beyond the strength of the theory was the personal power of the teacher, who understood how to mingle philosophy and religion with his lessons in Latin and Greek, and by means of the study of men and things to "lead the soul back to God."

This loyalty of the Renaissance schoolmaster to the standard of morals raised by the early theorists, enabled later humanistic writers to express their convictions on this point with greater

assurance.

In 1450, Aeneas Sylvius takes for granted that Humanism has produced perfectly cultured mothers to serve as models for their sons, whose educational interests he is considering:132 and in 1460, Maffeo Vegio could appeal to experience when he asserted that the study of the classics should be a help rather than a hindrance to the girl in her study and practice of virtue and religion. 133

Added to these powerful influences of the Church and the schoolroom was that of family environment in which the young Renaissance girl found peculiar inspiration. The daily companionship of brothers and sisters tempered her nature and strengthened her character, while the watchful love of a wise and tender mother and a devoted father directed her progress in

131 Op. cit.

132 Op. cit.

133 Cf. Kopp, "Mapheus Vegius und Aneas Sylvius," in Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik, II. Freiburg, 1889.

virtue and knowledge. For her coeducation was thus stripped of its disadvantages and robbed of its dangers. With the safeguards provided by this combination of happy circumstances she could lend herself to every intellectual and human interest without sacrificing the peculiar graces of her feminine nature not endangering her spiritual well-being.

At the passing away of the larger home schools, when the ducal families declined, the convent became the natural center of the new influence. The tendency among the women educated under humanism to embrace the life of the cloister was not diminished in Italy during the sixteenth century. The older orders of nuns thus strengthened their efficiency in the work of education, while new orders sprang up. Early in this century St. Angela de Merici founded the Order of Ursulines for the express purpose of educating girls. This was the first exclusively teaching order established in the Church, and it took its spirit from the attitude of the times towards the higher education of women. 134

134 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Ursulines; Cf. Heimbucher, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche, Paderborn, 1907-08; Hèlyot, Histoire des Ordres Monastiques, Religieux et Militaires, Paris, 1714-19.

(To be continued)

SIMILARITIES IN MONTESSORI AND ROUSSEAU

In the following comparison between Dr. Montessori and Rousseau such of their doctrines, views and practices will be considered as show any evidences of similarity, together with possible slight differences that may exist.

In the entire realm of educational history there is nothing so intensely interesting and fascinating as the study of the interrelation existing among educational leaders and reformers. We are all certainly aware of the tremendous and far-reaching influence of Rousseau in the educational world and how all subsequent reformers, more or less, fell in line with his views. For example, Basedow's career as educational reformer was solely due to the reading of "Emile." Pestalozzi, imbibing Rousseau's ingrained hatred for society and civilization, betook himself to farmingand education. We know certainly that Froebel, as pupil of Pestalozzi, drew much from the well-springs of Rousseaunean philosophy. Herbart's intimacy with Pestalozzi is matter of history. Spencer, on his part, very strongly advocates a number of Rousseau's theories, among which may be mentioned the doctrine of consequences, and the discipline of things.

That all these educational reformers claim originality in their views and doctrines is but natural; it is one way of securing attention and recognition. Rousseau, himself, in his abrupt break from the educational methods and usages of his day, tells us to take the very reverse of the current practice and thus be assured of almost always doing right. After him, Pestalozzi thought it his mission "to stop the car of European progress, and set it going in a new direction." Spencer, too, would consider educational problems free from all tradition and prejudice.

But despite their claims of originality, Rousseau's influence is clearly apparent in most of the famous educators of the past century. We know, too, that much in the Montessori system is traceable to the Froebelian school. Hence, it is but natural to conclude that Dr. Montessori likewise must have come within the influence of Rousseau's educational views.

These points are especially to be noted: first, the Doctrine of Liberty; second, Auto-education; third, Sense-training, with a number of additional theories and practices based upon these fundamentals.

DOCTRINE OF LIBERTY

The underlying doctrine in the Montessori system is the "Liberty of the Pupil." She clearly states: "The fundamental principle of scientific pedagogy must be, indeed, the liberty of the pupil; such liberty as shall permit a development of individual, spontaneous manifestations of the child's nature.1 . . . We cannot know the consequences of suffocating a spontaneous action at the time when the child is just beginning to be active: perhaps we suffocate life itself. Humanity shows itself in all its intellectual splendor during this tender age-and we must respect religiously, reverently, these first indications of individuality. If any educational act is to be efficacious, it will be only that which tends to help toward the complete unfolding of this life. To be thus helpful it is necessary rigorously to avoid the arrest of spontaneous movements." Her concept of liberty includes the harmonious adjustment of the individual to the needs of society, and there is constant and systematic provision made for this adjustment. Rousseau's idea of liberty is more akin to the liberty and freedom of the savage, as he would have man reared absolutely estranged from his fellows, and only in time learn to conform to the demands of society in so far as these impose themselves as unavoidable necessities. Though he would have the pupil enjoy liberty in that he never be commanded to do anything whatever against his will, still he says: "The child ought to choose only what you will have him do. He ought not to take a step which you have not foreseen; he ought not to open his mouth unless you know what he is going to say." Again, all exercise of authority is to disappear in Rousseau's educational scheme. The child is to be ruled solely by the law of necessity, and we have thus as a result a liberty somewhat equivalent to that of the brute creation.

Returning to Dr. Montessori we find she next treats of discipline. She uses liberty as the basis of discipline, and as liberty is activity, discipline itself must necessarily be active. "We do not consider," she says, "an individual disciplined only when he has been rendered as artificially silent as a mute and as immovable as a paralytic. He is an individual annihilated, not disciplined. We call an indi

1 Dr. Montessori, The Montessori Method, trans. by Anne E. George 28, New York, 1912.

2 Ibid., 87.

8 W. H. Payne, Rousseau's "Emile," Bk. II, 87, New York, 1906.

vidual disciplined when he is master of himself." Rousseau, in presenting to us Emile at the age of twelve, would have us carefully observe him and see if he be not disciplined, in perfect self-possession and mastery of himself. "Leave him to himself, in perfect liberty," he says, "and observe what he does without saying anything to him; consider what he will do and how he will go about it. Having no need of being assured that he is free, he never does anything thoughtlessly, or simply to exhibit his power over himself. Does he not know that he is always master of his own conduct? He is alert, quick, agile; his movements have all the vivacity of his age, but you do not see one which has not a purpose. Whatever he chooses to do, he will never undertake anything which is beyond his powers, for he has fairly tested them and knows them." 995

Putting children under constraint is strictly to be avoided in the Montessori system. The directress should constantly endeavor to gain the heart of the child "in order to direct him as a human soul." "We have," says Dr. Montessori, "until the present day, wished to dominate the child through force, by the imposition of external laws, instead of making an interior conquest of the child. In this way, the children have lived beside us without being able to make us know them. But if we cut away the artificiality with which we have enwrapped them, and the violence through which we have foolishly thought to discipline them, they will reveal themselves to us in all the truth of child nature." Although Rousseau would have us assert our superiority and mastery over the child, in that he come to know it, learn it and feel it, nevertheless he tells us that in the main the child should be left free and unhampered in his actions. In other words, spontaneity must not be interfered with. Besides, Rousseau draws attention to the results of this mode of action. "Seeing," he says, "that you are not bent on thwarting the child, never distrusting you, and having nothing to conceal from you, he will never deceive you, and will never lie to you; he will show himself just as he is, without fear."

Dr. Montessori would also have the child be spared every undue

'Dr. Montessori, ibid., 86.

"Emile," trans., ibid., Bk. II, 127.

Dr. Montessori, ibid., 117.

7 "Emile," Bk. II, 88.